If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Essay about reasons that a guy finds watching hockey to be boring

I've had this conversation hundreds of times, and it's never been longer than about 4 or 5 stupid, opinionated comments. But yet, here's a guy who wrote this hugely elaborate essay on the matter. I just find that interesting.

I like hockey, but I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points he makes, which I also find interesting. If you don't like hockey, skim some of the points he makes in mid-section of the essay and tell me what you think.

Not only is it really strange that someone would choose to write such a detailed, serious article about something as frivolous as watching televised sports, but it was dumb. It read as though he's an impatient child who needs constant scoring for his interest to be kept.

Baseball and American football aren't that much more high-scoring than ice hockey, either. In a given NFL game, each team will score an average of 21 pts, or 3 touchdowns; in the MLB, a team will score just shy of 5 points per game; and in the NHL, teams average between 3 and 4 goals per game. Soccer/football is the only real exception here, in which the average score is around 1 point per game - and in basketball, teams score constantly.

He also says that in hockey, a game can be 4-1 early in the first period and that decides it; it's pretty much over. Umm, the same happens in American football and baseball. If a baseball team is up 6-1 at the end of the third inning, it's probably over. If an American football team is up like 35-7 halfway through the second quarter, it's probably over. In all these situations, a comeback is possible, but not likely.

Not only is it really strange that someone would choose to write such a detailed, serious article about something as frivolous as watching televised sports, but it was dumb. It read as though he's an impatient child who needs constant scoring for his interest to be kept.

Baseball and American football aren't that much more high-scoring than ice hockey, either. In a given NFL game, each team will score an average of 21 pts, or 3 touchdowns; in the MLB, a team will score just shy of 5 points per game; and in the NHL, teams average between 3 and 4 goals per game. Soccer/football is the only real exception here, in which the average score is around 1 point per game - and in basketball, teams score constantly.

He also says that in hockey, a game can be 4-1 early in the first period and that decides it; it's pretty much over. Umm, the same happens in American football and baseball. If a baseball team is up 6-1 at the end of the third inning, it's probably over. If an American football team is up like 35-7 halfway through the second quarter, it's probably over. In all these situations, a comeback is possible, but not likely.

This completely. Less points in a game means that every potential point situation is nerve-wracking and tense. I mean it sucks when they don't score in soccer, but that doesn't mean I didn't spend 90 min. fidgeting nervously and death-clenching my beer/teeth when a team nears the goal area.

I think the biggest problem is that: every play that doesn't result in a goal is largely inconsequential. Sure, if you're dominating the game, you'll have more momentum and so forth. But still: about 85-90% percent of the plays do not result in a numerical score and thus are largely inconsequential.

Also, while I suppose it would be best to search for research on the subject, I would tend to disagree with your assessment on the likelihood of comebacks in various sports. My impression is that in hockey, if a team is down 4 or more goals, a comeback will happen only about 5% of the time. But in a similar situation in baseball, say if a team is down 6-0 at the end of the third inning, a comeback seems much more likely (perhaps around 11-14%). You can always tire out the starting pitcher and get to their shitty relief player. As long you can get men on base, there is a chance to at away at chunks of the lead.

I think the biggest problem is that: every play that doesn't result in a goal is largely inconsequential. Sure, if you're dominating the game, you'll have more momentum and so forth. But still: about 85-90% percent of the plays do not result in a numerical score and thus are largely inconsequential.

But if every play results in a goal, then the goals and the plays themselves are meaningless. Take handball, they practically score in every run. To win in handball is basically about making sure the other team misses a goal, points are irrelevant.

The plays themselves are important because they are an opportunity, the possibility of a goal is always there in soccer. A comeback from 2-0 is not unheard of, it's not even very implausible. But can you imagine the excitement of a single goal in a game that will likely only have 3 goals total? That one goal is important, its crucial. That it could potentially happen every time the ball nears the goal, that's tension. Every single goal is important, so the possibility of that goal immediately raises the stakes. Whereas in high-point games one point here or there is inconsequential. Ironically, the more points per game, the more pointless they are.